Discussion:
BLDM
Add Reply
Jim GM4DHJ ...
2022-01-08 12:54:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
wake up britain...........white indigenous britain is under attack (has
been for some time and it's now went up a gear)

see guvmint considering appeal court - not to overturn verdict but to
have judiciary explain how they are now going to deal will similar acts
of vandalism in future


thanks to the clever lefties it is now game on to demolish whatever blm
don't like...........as uk law works on the principle of precedence
(and let's recap - this statue was demolished in broad daylight for
everyone to see, the 4 admitted they demolished it - they got off purely
on the basis that they were offended and it impacted their mental health)

yet the law clearly states that acts of violence can only ever be
excused if it is proven there was an imminent threat to life or they
were in imminent serious danger (clearly they were not and this was
without any doubt a gross misscarriage of justice)


there is an easy way to test if this was a case of sheer political and
ideological bias..............

get someone to bulldoze the statue of the criminal and murderer nelson
mandella and use the colston case of precedence as the defence (can you
guess what would happen - I can)

while at it bulldoze every mosque..........mohamed and muslims had a
long history of having slaves

also........some of the biggest slave traders were black
africans.......they rounded up other blacks and sold them to whitey and
other blacks........yet blm are not upset and offended by them


what a joke...........this is how far the uk has fallen at the hands of
the dangerous woke lefties

and joe public doesn't realise how dangerous a precedence this has set -
until one day soon they will be on the receiving end of it when blm or
black boy breaks in to their house and the law states it's ok because
they were upset and offended

if folk can't see the dire implications then "none so blind as those who
won't see"
Harry Bloomfield Esq
2022-01-08 13:34:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
wake up britain...........white indigenous britain is under attack (has been
for some time and it's now went up a gear)
see guvmint considering appeal court - not to overturn verdict but to have
judiciary explain how they are now going to deal will similar acts of
vandalism in future
thanks to the clever lefties it is now game on to demolish whatever blm don't
like...........as uk law works on the principle of precedence
(and let's recap - this statue was demolished in broad daylight for everyone
to see, the 4 admitted they demolished it - they got off purely on the basis
that they were offended and it impacted their mental health)
yet the law clearly states that acts of violence can only ever be excused if
it is proven there was an imminent threat to life or they were in imminent
serious danger (clearly they were not and this was without any doubt a gross
misscarriage of justice)
there is an easy way to test if this was a case of sheer political and
ideological bias..............
get someone to bulldoze the statue of the criminal and murderer nelson
mandella and use the colston case of precedence as the defence (can you guess
what would happen - I can)
while at it bulldoze every mosque..........mohamed and muslims had a long
history of having slaves
also........some of the biggest slave traders were black africans.......they
rounded up other blacks and sold them to whitey and other blacks........yet
blm are not upset and offended by them
what a joke...........this is how far the uk has fallen at the hands of the
dangerous woke lefties
and joe public doesn't realise how dangerous a precedence this has set -
until one day soon they will be on the receiving end of it when blm or black
boy breaks in to their house and the law states it's ok because they were
upset and offended
if folk can't see the dire implications then "none so blind as those who
won't see"
+1 well said Jim!
Jim GM4DHJ ...
2022-01-08 13:55:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Harry Bloomfield Esq
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
wake up britain...........white indigenous britain is under attack
(has been for some time and it's now went up a gear)
see guvmint considering appeal court - not to overturn verdict but to
have judiciary explain how they are now going to deal will similar
acts of vandalism in future
thanks to the clever lefties it is now game on to demolish whatever
blm don't like...........as uk law works on the principle of precedence
(and let's recap - this statue was demolished in broad daylight for
everyone to see, the 4 admitted they demolished it - they got off
purely on the basis that they were offended and it impacted their
mental health)
yet the law clearly states that acts of violence can only ever be
excused if it is proven there was an imminent threat to life or they
were in imminent serious danger (clearly they were not and this was
without any doubt a gross misscarriage of justice)
there is an easy way to test if this was a case of sheer political and
ideological bias..............
get someone to bulldoze the statue of the criminal and murderer nelson
mandella and use the colston case of precedence as the defence (can
you guess what would happen - I can)
while at it bulldoze every mosque..........mohamed and muslims had a
long history of having slaves
also........some of the biggest slave traders were black
africans.......they rounded up other blacks and sold them to whitey
and other blacks........yet blm are not upset and offended by them
what a joke...........this is how far the uk has fallen at the hands
of the dangerous woke lefties
and joe public doesn't realise how dangerous a precedence this has set
- until one day soon they will be on the receiving end of it when blm
or black boy breaks in to their house and the law states it's ok
because they were upset and offended
if folk can't see the dire implications then "none so blind as those
who won't see"
+1 well said Jim!
it was nothing
The Natural Philosopher
2022-01-08 18:08:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Four white blokes, who were clearly guilty as hell, were declared
innocent by an almost completely white jury.
How does that support your argument that "white indigenous britain is
under attack"?
because they werent ripping out a statue of Nelson Mandela
--
“People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one’s
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
one’s suitability to be taken seriously.”

Paul Krugman
GB
2022-01-10 11:47:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Four white blokes, who were clearly guilty as hell, were declared
innocent by an almost completely white jury.
How does that support your argument that "white indigenous britain is
under attack"?
because they werent ripping out a statue of Nelson Mandela
I understand that a large number of Bristolians had been campaigning for
this statue to be removed, perfectly peacefully, for around ten years.
Patience had expired, and it does seem that 12 out of 12 jurors thought
that taking direct action was justified on this occasion.

Given that the jury was almost completely "white indigenous", how can
this possibly be an attack on white indigenous Britain?
The Natural Philosopher
2022-01-10 12:02:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Four white blokes, who were clearly guilty as hell, were declared
innocent by an almost completely white jury.
How does that support your argument that "white indigenous britain is
under attack"?
because they werent ripping out a statue of Nelson Mandela
I understand that a large number of Bristolians
25 student Marxist actvists.
Post by GB
had been campaigning for
this statue to be removed, perfectly peacefully, for around ten years.
Patience had expired, and it does seem that 12 out of 12 jurors thought
that taking direct action was justified on this occasion.
Given that the jury was almost completely "white indigenous", how can
this possibly be an attack on white indigenous Britain?
--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

― Leo Tolstoy
Robin
2022-01-10 12:19:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Four white blokes, who were clearly guilty as hell, were declared
innocent by an almost completely white jury.
How does that support your argument that "white indigenous britain is
under attack"?
because they werent ripping out a statue of Nelson Mandela
I understand that a large number of Bristolians had been campaigning for
this statue to be removed, perfectly peacefully, for around ten years.
Patience had expired, and it does seem that 12 out of 12 jurors thought
that taking direct action was justified on this occasion.
Given that the jury was almost completely "white indigenous", how can
this possibly be an attack on white indigenous Britain?
JOOI how do you know 'the jury was almost completely "white
indigenous"'? We don't use for voir dire for jury selection in this
country.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Robin
2022-01-10 12:21:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robin
Post by GB
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Four white blokes, who were clearly guilty as hell, were declared
innocent by an almost completely white jury.
How does that support your argument that "white indigenous britain
is under attack"?
because they werent ripping out a statue of Nelson Mandela
I understand that a large number of Bristolians had been campaigning
for this statue to be removed, perfectly peacefully, for around ten
years. Patience had expired, and it does seem that 12 out of 12 jurors
thought that taking direct action was justified on this occasion.
Given that the jury was almost completely "white indigenous", how can
this possibly be an attack on white indigenous Britain?
JOOI how do you know 'the jury was almost completely "white
indigenous"'?  We don't use for voir dire for jury selection in this
country.
Please ignore the first "for".
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
GB
2022-01-10 13:37:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robin
Post by GB
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Four white blokes, who were clearly guilty as hell, were declared
innocent by an almost completely white jury.
How does that support your argument that "white indigenous britain
is under attack"?
because they werent ripping out a statue of Nelson Mandela
I understand that a large number of Bristolians had been campaigning
for this statue to be removed, perfectly peacefully, for around ten
years. Patience had expired, and it does seem that 12 out of 12 jurors
thought that taking direct action was justified on this occasion.
Given that the jury was almost completely "white indigenous", how can
this possibly be an attack on white indigenous Britain?
JOOI how do you know 'the jury was almost completely "white
indigenous"'?  We don't use for voir dire for jury selection in this
country.
It's interesting that it is 2 days since I made that claim about the
jury, and you are the first person to challenge it. You can get away
with blue murder on the internet!

The Bristol population is 84% white.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/bristol-population

If the jury is roughly 84% white, my claim is correct, of course, but I
can't prove it. :)
GB
2022-01-10 16:03:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by Robin
Post by GB
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Four white blokes, who were clearly guilty as hell, were declared
innocent by an almost completely white jury.
How does that support your argument that "white indigenous britain
is under attack"?
because they werent ripping out a statue of Nelson Mandela
I understand that a large number of Bristolians had been campaigning
for this statue to be removed, perfectly peacefully, for around ten
years. Patience had expired, and it does seem that 12 out of 12
jurors thought that taking direct action was justified on this
occasion.
Given that the jury was almost completely "white indigenous", how
can this possibly be an attack on white indigenous Britain?
JOOI how do you know 'the jury was almost completely "white
indigenous"'?  We don't use for voir dire for jury selection in this
country.
It's interesting that it is 2 days since I made that claim about the
jury, and you are the first person to challenge it.  You can get away
with blue murder on the internet!
No.  2 days ago you referred to "an almost completely white jury".  I
have no idea if that is true but I can see that it could be based on
sight of the jurors.  Today you added "indigenous".  That makes a
difference.  See below.
Post by GB
The Bristol population is 84% white.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/bristol-population
If the jury is roughly 84% white, my claim is correct, of course, but
I can't prove it. :)
No, it's not necessarily correct.  Much depends on how you define
"indigenous".  But I would find it odd (or perhaps stark raving) to
equate it with "white".  E.g. there are over 6,000 residents of Bristol
born in Poland who may not even be UK citizens.
I stand corrected, but I also stand defiant! :)

One reason is that the stats are:

77.9% White British, 0.9% White Irish, 0.1% Gypsy or Irish Travellers,
5.1% other white

So, on average you'd expect 9-10 White British in a jury of 12, which is
'almost completely' in my book, although I think there's room for
discussion about that, too.

That's unless you only count Celts as indigenous, in which case I'm lost.

The other reason is that my main point is valid. In a city with a very
large white preponderance in the population, the jury voted unanimously
to exonerate the defendants. If the indigenous white population is
doomed, as Jim claims, it's because the indigenous white population
wants that. Of course, they don't want it, and they are not doomed.

(Note the pronoun! I'm of immigrant stock.)




By the way, did you read what The Secret Barrister wrote about this?

"What is a lawful excuse for damaging property?
Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides examples of what
might amount to a “lawful excuse”. In this case, two lawful excuses were
raised, and the judge agreed that they should be left for the jury to
decide.

The first was that reasonable force was used to prevent a crime. All
defendants argued that the public display by the council of the statue
was itself a crime, or potentially two crimes. First, it was said that
displaying the statue amounted to an offence of displaying indecent
material contrary to section 1 of the Indecent Displays (Control) Act
1981. Second, it was said that there was an offence of displaying a
visible representation that is abusive, within the sight of a person
likely to be caused distress by it, contrary to section 5 of the Public
Order Act 1986.

When considering this defence, there were three key questions for the
jury: did the defendants honestly believe that a crime was being
committed? (Note that the question is not whether a crime had been
committed by displaying the statue, but whether the defendants honestly
believed that a crime was being committed.) Were the defendants’ actions
to prevent one or both of those crimes? If so, did the actions amount to
the use of reasonable force, in the circumstances as the defendants
perceived them to be?

The prosecution case was “no” to each question. And the prosecution has
the burden of disproving this defence.

The second “lawful excuse”, which is set out in section 5 of the
Criminal Damage Act 1971, concerns who owned the statue. It was raised
by two of the defendants, who said that they honestly believed that the
statue was owned by the people of Bristol — not the council — and that
had the people of Bristol known of the circumstances, they would have
consented to what was done.

The prosecution case was that the defendants had no such belief, and had
taken no steps to consult the people of Bristol. Again, the burden is on
the prosecution to disprove the defence. If there’s any doubt, the
defendants are entitled to the benefit. That is the cornerstone of our
justice system."

Based on this, I'm happy to retract my 'guilty as hell' comment.
Tim Streater
2022-01-10 16:38:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by GB
The first was that reasonable force was used to prevent a crime. All
defendants argued that the public display by the council of the statue
was itself a crime, or potentially two crimes. First, it was said that
displaying the statue amounted to an offence of displaying indecent
material contrary to section 1 of the Indecent Displays (Control) Act
1981. Second, it was said that there was an offence of displaying a
visible representation that is abusive, within the sight of a person
likely to be caused distress by it, contrary to section 5 of the Public
Order Act 1986.
That it was was merely the opinion of the perps, who had taken no steps to
ascertain whether it did or not.
Post by GB
When considering this defence, there were three key questions for the
jury: did the defendants honestly believe that a crime was being
committed? (Note that the question is not whether a crime had been
committed by displaying the statue, but whether the defendants honestly
believed that a crime was being committed.) Were the defendants’ actions
to prevent one or both of those crimes? If so, did the actions amount to
the use of reasonable force, in the circumstances as the defendants
perceived them to be?
The prosecution case was “no” to each question. And the prosecution has
the burden of disproving this defence.
The second “lawful excuse”, which is set out in section 5 of the
Criminal Damage Act 1971, concerns who owned the statue. It was raised
by two of the defendants, who said that they honestly believed that the
statue was owned by the people of Bristol — not the council — and that
had the people of Bristol known of the circumstances, they would have
consented to what was done.
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that, and if my ownership is less
than 100%, that it set out my fraction of ownership. And setting out any
rights and duties that pertain thereto.

That is why statements such as "We own the NHS" or "We owned BR, and there
they are selling to us what we already owned", are bollocks, because "we" have
or had no such ownership. Where is my NHS share certificate? NHS and BR are
owned by an entity known as "The Government". The ultimate form of private
ownership.

The defendants' arguments amount to nothing more than sophistry.
--
When it becomes serious, you have to lie.

Jean-Claude Juncker, Reuters 31st May 2013.
Chris Green
2022-01-10 17:29:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
--
Chris Green
·
Tim Streater
2022-01-10 19:01:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all for my
"ownership" of the NHS.

The mythology surrounding the NHS ("the envy of the world") is exceedingly
dangerous and helps prevent useful reform.
--
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards. In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
- Paul Tomblin, ASR
Chris Green
2022-01-10 19:24:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all for my
"ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have
I anything about my television.
--
Chris Green
·
charles
2022-01-10 20:23:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I
expect to have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof
of ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all
for my "ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have I
anything about my television.
when you bought them, you would have got a receipt.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Chris Green
2022-01-10 21:14:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I
expect to have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof
of ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all
for my "ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have I
anything about my television.
when you bought them, you would have got a receipt.
Would I? ... and anyway it proves nothing because there's no way of
linking the device (TV, whatever) with the receipt. I have lots of
receipts for lots of TVs, I have quite a few TVs still, how could they
be connected?
--
Chris Green
·
Tim Streater
2022-01-10 21:29:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Green
Post by charles
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I
expect to have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof
of ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all
for my "ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have I
anything about my television.
when you bought them, you would have got a receipt.
Would I? ... and anyway it proves nothing because there's no way of
linking the device (TV, whatever) with the receipt. I have lots of
receipts for lots of TVs, I have quite a few TVs still, how could they
be connected?
Serial number if you kept the original packaging.
--
Socialism: For people who lack the charisma to be train spotters.

Ann Sheridan
Chris Green
2022-01-10 21:39:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by charles
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I
expect to have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof
of ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all
for my "ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have I
anything about my television.
when you bought them, you would have got a receipt.
Would I? ... and anyway it proves nothing because there's no way of
linking the device (TV, whatever) with the receipt. I have lots of
receipts for lots of TVs, I have quite a few TVs still, how could they
be connected?
Serial number if you kept the original packaging.
I don't think I have seen a receipt with a serial number on it for
many, many years.

Even an LG TV we bought from Comet in November 2008 (yes, I still have
the receipt) has no serial number on it, just the model number.
--
Chris Green
·
Steve Walker
2022-01-11 12:14:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by charles
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I
expect to have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof
of ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all
for my "ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have I
anything about my television.
when you bought them, you would have got a receipt.
Would I? ... and anyway it proves nothing because there's no way of
linking the device (TV, whatever) with the receipt. I have lots of
receipts for lots of TVs, I have quite a few TVs still, how could they
be connected?
Serial number if you kept the original packaging.
I don't think I have seen a receipt with a serial number on it for
many, many years.
Even an LG TV we bought from Comet in November 2008 (yes, I still have
the receipt) has no serial number on it, just the model number.
Even if there was a matching serial number on the TV and the receipt -
how could you prove that you didn't sell or give ownership of it to
someone else later?

You can show that you very likely own the TV, but it is impossible to
prove it.

Only something like a house, where every transfer of ownership is now
registered, gives proof - and even that has been demonstrated as not
always completely correct.
Chris Green
2022-01-11 12:40:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by charles
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I
expect to have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof
of ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all
for my "ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have I
anything about my television.
when you bought them, you would have got a receipt.
Would I? ... and anyway it proves nothing because there's no way of
linking the device (TV, whatever) with the receipt. I have lots of
receipts for lots of TVs, I have quite a few TVs still, how could they
be connected?
Serial number if you kept the original packaging.
I don't think I have seen a receipt with a serial number on it for
many, many years.
Even an LG TV we bought from Comet in November 2008 (yes, I still have
the receipt) has no serial number on it, just the model number.
Even if there was a matching serial number on the TV and the receipt -
how could you prove that you didn't sell or give ownership of it to
someone else later?
You can show that you very likely own the TV, but it is impossible to
prove it.
Exactly! :-)
--
Chris Green
·
Tim Streater
2022-01-10 21:27:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all for my
"ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have
I anything about my television.
I'm not sure what actually constitutes "proof of ownership" in those cases.
But plenty of paper to show that I have "held and enjoyed" those items for
some time. Unlike, as I say, for the NHS (or British Rail for that matter).
--
"Please stop telling us what you feel. Please stop telling us what your intuition is. Your intuitive feelings are of no interest whatsoever, and nor are mine. I don't give a bugger what you feel, or what I feel. I want to know what the evidence shows." -- Richard Dawkins
Chris Green
2022-01-10 21:40:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all for my
"ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have
I anything about my television.
I'm not sure what actually constitutes "proof of ownership" in those cases.
But plenty of paper to show that I have "held and enjoyed" those items for
some time. Unlike, as I say, for the NHS (or British Rail for that matter).
I've got loads of paperwork showing that I have "held and enjoyed" NHS
services! :-)
--
Chris Green
·
Tim Streater
2022-01-10 21:56:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all for my
"ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have
I anything about my television.
I'm not sure what actually constitutes "proof of ownership" in those cases.
But plenty of paper to show that I have "held and enjoyed" those items for
some time. Unlike, as I say, for the NHS (or British Rail for that matter).
I've got loads of paperwork showing that I have "held and enjoyed" NHS
services! :-)
What, such as nurses and doctors? Where d'ye keep them, in the cupboard under
the stairs? Or MRI scanners, bit heavy on the floorboards I'd have thought.
--
Lady Astor: "If you were my husband I'd give you poison."
Churchill: "If you were my wife, I'd drink it."
Chris Green
2022-01-10 22:13:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all for my
"ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have
I anything about my television.
I'm not sure what actually constitutes "proof of ownership" in those cases.
But plenty of paper to show that I have "held and enjoyed" those items for
some time. Unlike, as I say, for the NHS (or British Rail for that matter).
I've got loads of paperwork showing that I have "held and enjoyed" NHS
services! :-)
What, such as nurses and doctors? Where d'ye keep them, in the cupboard under
the stairs? Or MRI scanners, bit heavy on the floorboards I'd have thought.
:-) However the NHS paperwork I have is just as good a proof of
'owning' a bit of NHS as the paperwork I have for services and goods
from other suppliers.
--
Chris Green
·
Jim GM4DHJ ...
2022-01-11 09:25:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all for my
"ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have
I anything about my television.
I'm not sure what actually constitutes "proof of ownership" in those cases.
But plenty of paper to show that I have "held and enjoyed" those items for
some time. Unlike, as I say, for the NHS (or British Rail for that matter).
I've got loads of paperwork showing that I have "held and enjoyed" NHS
services! :-)
me to and a receipt for spare parts......
--
The roads must roll ...
JNugent
2022-01-11 03:27:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all for my
"ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have
I anything about my television.
Were you not given a receipt for the purchase price?

I was.

And if by any chance I mislaid it, I could go back to the dealer and get
a duplicate from their sales records.
Chris Green
2022-01-11 09:38:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all for my
"ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have
I anything about my television.
Were you not given a receipt for the purchase price?
I was.
And if by any chance I mislaid it, I could go back to the dealer and get
a duplicate from their sales records.
Yes, but as discussed elsewhere in this thread, there's no serial
number on receipts nowadays (if there ever was) so you can't prove
that the item in question is the one you bought.
--
Chris Green
·
Richard
2022-01-11 10:16:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Green
Post by JNugent
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all for my
"ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have
I anything about my television.
Were you not given a receipt for the purchase price?
I was.
And if by any chance I mislaid it, I could go back to the dealer and get
a duplicate from their sales records.
Yes, but as discussed elsewhere in this thread, there's no serial
number on receipts nowadays (if there ever was) so you can't prove
that the item in question is the one you bought.
Awkward bugger, eh? If you purchase a costly item, there is usually a
process to register it for warranty purposes. This *does* need a serial
number.
Chris Green
2022-01-11 10:28:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard
Post by Chris Green
Post by JNugent
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all for my
"ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have
I anything about my television.
Were you not given a receipt for the purchase price?
I was.
And if by any chance I mislaid it, I could go back to the dealer and get
a duplicate from their sales records.
Yes, but as discussed elsewhere in this thread, there's no serial
number on receipts nowadays (if there ever was) so you can't prove
that the item in question is the one you bought.
Awkward bugger, eh? If you purchase a costly item, there is usually a
process to register it for warranty purposes. This *does* need a serial
number.
No one in their right mind does that! The rights one has against the
retailer are quite sufficient, all that 'registering' does is get you
loads and loads of junk mail for the next five years.
--
Chris Green
·
Richard
2022-01-11 10:36:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard
Post by Chris Green
Post by JNugent
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all for my
"ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have
I anything about my television.
Were you not given a receipt for the purchase price?
I was.
And if by any chance I mislaid it, I could go back to the dealer and get
a duplicate from their sales records.
Yes, but as discussed elsewhere in this thread, there's no serial
number on receipts nowadays (if there ever was) so you can't prove
that the item in question is the one you bought.
Awkward bugger, eh? If you purchase a costly item, there is usually a
process to register it for warranty purposes. This *does* need a serial
number.
No one in their right mind does that!> The rights one has against the
retailer are quite sufficient, all that 'registering' does is get you
loads and loads of junk mail for the next five years.
The paranoia is great in this one.

But it gives you proof of ownership.
Rod Speed
2022-01-11 14:24:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard
Post by Richard
Post by Chris Green
Post by JNugent
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I
expect to have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions!
What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all for my
"ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have
I anything about my television.
Were you not given a receipt for the purchase price?
I was.
And if by any chance I mislaid it, I could go back to the dealer and get
a duplicate from their sales records.
Yes, but as discussed elsewhere in this thread, there's no serial
number on receipts nowadays (if there ever was) so you can't prove
that the item in question is the one you bought.
Awkward bugger, eh? If you purchase a costly item, there is usually a
process to register it for warranty purposes. This *does* need a serial
number.
No one in their right mind does that!> The rights one has against the
retailer are quite sufficient, all that 'registering' does is get you
loads and loads of junk mail for the next five years.
The paranoia is great in this one.
But it gives you proof of ownership.
Nope, you can use someone else's serial number
given that few are stupid enough to register.
Robin
2022-01-11 12:41:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Green
Post by Richard
Post by Chris Green
Post by JNugent
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all for my
"ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have
I anything about my television.
Were you not given a receipt for the purchase price?
I was.
And if by any chance I mislaid it, I could go back to the dealer and get
a duplicate from their sales records.
Yes, but as discussed elsewhere in this thread, there's no serial
number on receipts nowadays (if there ever was) so you can't prove
that the item in question is the one you bought.
Awkward bugger, eh? If you purchase a costly item, there is usually a
process to register it for warranty purposes. This *does* need a serial
number.
No one in their right mind does that! The rights one has against the
retailer are quite sufficient, all that 'registering' does is get you
loads and loads of junk mail for the next five years.
I registered an Oral-B toothbrush in order to get an extra year on the
warranty. I claimed under that warranty in the extra year. New item
supplied without quibble or delay. What rights against the retailer can
you guarantee (sic) would give the same result?
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Chris Green
2022-01-11 13:06:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robin
Post by Chris Green
Post by Richard
Post by Chris Green
Post by JNugent
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all for my
"ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have
I anything about my television.
Were you not given a receipt for the purchase price?
I was.
And if by any chance I mislaid it, I could go back to the dealer and get
a duplicate from their sales records.
Yes, but as discussed elsewhere in this thread, there's no serial
number on receipts nowadays (if there ever was) so you can't prove
that the item in question is the one you bought.
Awkward bugger, eh? If you purchase a costly item, there is usually a
process to register it for warranty purposes. This *does* need a serial
number.
No one in their right mind does that! The rights one has against the
retailer are quite sufficient, all that 'registering' does is get you
loads and loads of junk mail for the next five years.
I registered an Oral-B toothbrush in order to get an extra year on the
warranty. I claimed under that warranty in the extra year. New item
supplied without quibble or delay. What rights against the retailer can
you guarantee (sic) would give the same result?
Nothing is guaranteed, however I'm sure the current consumer
legislation would deem that it's reasonable to expect an electric
toothbrush to last for more than a year and so you'd have a claim
against the retailer.

I did this a few years ago with a dishwasher that failed after 18
months or so (maybe more, I can't remember exactly). I had no long
term 'warranty' but claimed against the retailer from whom I bought it
and they replaced it. It took a bit of plain speaking to them but in
the end they knew they really didn't have any alternative.
--
Chris Green
·
Robin
2022-01-11 14:06:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Green
Post by Robin
Post by Chris Green
Post by Richard
Post by Chris Green
Post by JNugent
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all for my
"ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have
I anything about my television.
Were you not given a receipt for the purchase price?
I was.
And if by any chance I mislaid it, I could go back to the dealer and get
a duplicate from their sales records.
Yes, but as discussed elsewhere in this thread, there's no serial
number on receipts nowadays (if there ever was) so you can't prove
that the item in question is the one you bought.
Awkward bugger, eh? If you purchase a costly item, there is usually a
process to register it for warranty purposes. This *does* need a serial
number.
No one in their right mind does that! The rights one has against the
retailer are quite sufficient, all that 'registering' does is get you
loads and loads of junk mail for the next five years.
I registered an Oral-B toothbrush in order to get an extra year on the
warranty. I claimed under that warranty in the extra year. New item
supplied without quibble or delay. What rights against the retailer can
you guarantee (sic) would give the same result?
Nothing is guaranteed, however I'm sure the current consumer
legislation would deem that it's reasonable to expect an electric
toothbrush to last for more than a year and so you'd have a claim
against the retailer.
I did this a few years ago with a dishwasher that failed after 18
months or so (maybe more, I can't remember exactly). I had no long
term 'warranty' but claimed against the retailer from whom I bought it
and they replaced it. It took a bit of plain speaking to them but in
the end they knew they really didn't have any alternative.
Good for you. But your retailer did not have to meet your demand so
easily given in law the onus was on you to show a defect present at the
time of sale. And might be less inclined to do so on items which have a
shorter expected life. In contrast I had a contractual right to a
repair or replacement which was met - as I said - without demur or
delay. So while you are entitled to think your statutory rights are
"quite sufficient", I am entitled to think (a) I was and am in my right
mind and (b) you are demonstrably wrong about junk mail: I've not had it
after registering for such warranties.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Rod Speed
2022-01-11 14:47:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robin
Post by Chris Green
Post by Robin
Post by Chris Green
Post by Richard
Post by Chris Green
Post by JNugent
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something,
I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions!
What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at
all for my
"ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have
I anything about my television.
Were you not given a receipt for the purchase price?
I was.
And if by any chance I mislaid it, I could go back to the dealer and get
a duplicate from their sales records.
Yes, but as discussed elsewhere in this thread, there's no serial
number on receipts nowadays (if there ever was) so you can't prove
that the item in question is the one you bought.
Awkward bugger, eh? If you purchase a costly item, there is usually a
process to register it for warranty purposes. This *does* need a serial
number.
No one in their right mind does that! The rights one has against the
retailer are quite sufficient, all that 'registering' does is get you
loads and loads of junk mail for the next five years.
I registered an Oral-B toothbrush in order to get an extra year on the
warranty. I claimed under that warranty in the extra year. New item
supplied without quibble or delay. What rights against the retailer can
you guarantee (sic) would give the same result?
Nothing is guaranteed, however I'm sure the current consumer
legislation would deem that it's reasonable to expect an electric
toothbrush to last for more than a year and so you'd have a claim
against the retailer.
I did this a few years ago with a dishwasher that failed after 18
months or so (maybe more, I can't remember exactly). I had no long
term 'warranty' but claimed against the retailer from whom I bought it
and they replaced it. It took a bit of plain speaking to them but in
the end they knew they really didn't have any alternative.
Good for you. But your retailer did not have to meet your demand so
easily given in law the onus was on you to show a defect present at the
time of sale.
No he doesn’t. ALL that needs to be shown is that it didn’t keep
working for as long as you can reasonably expect with that device.
Post by Robin
And might be less inclined to do so on items which have a shorter expected
life.
Doesn’t apply in this case.
Post by Robin
In contrast I had a contractual right to a repair or replacement which was
met - as I said - without demur or delay.
Yes.
Post by Robin
So while you are entitled to think your statutory rights are "quite
sufficient", I am entitled to think (a) I was and am in my right mind and
(b) you are demonstrably wrong about junk mail: I've not had it after
registering for such warranties.
Wonder why they offer an extended warranty if you register tho.

I have had a couple of things with that, but haven't bothered
to register, mainly because I have been too slack to bother.
JNugent
2022-01-11 12:15:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Green
Post by JNugent
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Chris Green
Post by Tim Streater
"The people' don't own anything. If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
I doubt if you have such a document for 99% of your posessions! What
proves that you own your TV (if you have one) or your car (and, no,
the V50 registration document explicitly states that it isn't proof of
ownership).
I've got more paperwork for the TV and the car than the nothing at all for my
"ownership" of the NHS.
So what 'proofs of ownership' do you actually have? I can't think of
what sort of document they would be. I certainly have no proof of
ownership of either of my cars (as I said V50 *isn't* this), nor have
I anything about my television.
Were you not given a receipt for the purchase price?
I was.
And if by any chance I mislaid it, I could go back to the dealer and get
a duplicate from their sales records.
Yes, but as discussed elsewhere in this thread, there's no serial
number on receipts nowadays (if there ever was) so you can't prove
that the item in question is the one you bought.
That rather depends on the standard of proof to which one is being put.

As it happens, I have various receipts for items with serial numbers,
where the s/n is recorded on the receipt. But for any reasonable
everyday purposes, producing a receipt will be all that is necessary,
surely? The only sense in which it might be unreliable is the case where
it is suspected that one has sold one's own [TV / audio system /
refrigerator / etc] and stolen another one like it.
Dave Plowman (News)
2022-01-11 14:20:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Green
Yes, but as discussed elsewhere in this thread, there's no serial
number on receipts nowadays (if there ever was) so you can't prove
that the item in question is the one you bought.
Then there would be no way in law to convict you of stealing it - or
whatever.
--
*Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Dave Plowman (News)
2022-01-11 14:17:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim Streater
The mythology surrounding the NHS ("the envy of the world") is exceedingly
dangerous and helps prevent useful reform.
Can we get this clear? You, as a rabid Tory, don't like anything from the
UK being claimed as being 'the envy the world'?

How do you get on with Bojo's claims of how well the UK handled Covid?
--
*It's this dirty because I washed it with your wife's knickers*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Dave Plowman (News)
2022-01-11 14:13:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim Streater
If I'm said to "own" something, I expect to
have in my possession a document expressing that,
Where do you find room for all the receipts? How do you find quickly the
correct one?
--
*If your feet smell and your nose runs, you're built upside down.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Robin
2022-01-10 19:18:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by GB
Post by GB
The Bristol population is 84% white.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/bristol-population
If the jury is roughly 84% white, my claim is correct, of course, but
I can't prove it. :)
No, it's not necessarily correct.  Much depends on how you define
"indigenous".  But I would find it odd (or perhaps stark raving) to
equate it with "white".  E.g. there are over 6,000 residents of
Bristol born in Poland who may not even be UK citizens.
I stand corrected, but I also stand defiant! :)
77.9% White British, 0.9% White Irish, 0.1% Gypsy or Irish Travellers,
5.1% other white
So, on average you'd expect 9-10 White British in a jury of 12, which is
'almost completely' in my book, although I think there's room for
discussion about that, too.
Those population figures are from the 2011 census. In 2001 the
percentage of White British was 88% so it fell 10 percentage points in
those 10 years. I doubt it's gone anywhere but lower since then. Then
add the fact that people over 75 aren't eligible for jury service and I
think they are more than averagely White British. So my expectations
are rather lower than yours.
Post by GB
The other reason is that my main point is valid. In a city with a very
large white preponderance in the population, the jury voted unanimously
to exonerate the defendants. If the indigenous white population is
doomed, as Jim claims, it's because the indigenous white population
wants that. Of course, they don't want it, and they are not doomed.
"Voted unanimously" =! wanted the NG verdict. If 3 or more jurors were
dead set on NG the others had a choice of plodding on until the judge
accepted they were not going to reach a verdict of going along with NG.
Post by GB
By the way, did you read what The Secret Barrister wrote about this?
Yes. And thought it far less comprehensive and clear than Matthew
Scott's blog and the judge's "route" he quotes

https://barristerblogger.com/2022/01/09/colston-summing-up-those-legal-directions-in-full/
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
GB
2022-01-10 19:50:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Voted unanimously" =! wanted the NG verdict.  If 3 or more jurors were
dead set on NG the others had a choice of plodding on until the judge
accepted they were not going to reach a verdict of going along with NG.
"Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?"
Post by GB
By the way, did you read what The Secret Barrister wrote about this?
Yes.  And thought it far less comprehensive and clear than Matthew
Scott's blog and the judge's "route" he quotes
https://barristerblogger.com/2022/01/09/colston-summing-up-those-legal-directions-in-full/
Thanks. I'll have a look.
%
2022-01-08 19:22:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Harry Bloomfield Esq
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
wake up britain...........white indigenous britain is under attack (has
been for some time and it's now went up a gear)
see guvmint considering appeal court - not to overturn verdict but to
have judiciary explain how they are now going to deal will similar acts
of vandalism in future
thanks to the clever lefties it is now game on to demolish whatever blm
don't like...........as uk law works on the principle of precedence
(and let's recap - this statue was demolished in broad daylight for
everyone to see, the 4 admitted they demolished it - they got off purely
on the basis that they were offended and it impacted their mental health)
yet the law clearly states that acts of violence can only ever be excused
if it is proven there was an imminent threat to life or they were in
imminent serious danger (clearly they were not and this was without any
doubt a gross misscarriage of justice)
there is an easy way to test if this was a case of sheer political and
ideological bias..............
get someone to bulldoze the statue of the criminal and murderer nelson
mandella and use the colston case of precedence as the defence (can you
guess what would happen - I can)
while at it bulldoze every mosque..........mohamed and muslims had a long
history of having slaves
also........some of the biggest slave traders were black
africans.......they rounded up other blacks and sold them to whitey and
other blacks........yet blm are not upset and offended by them
what a joke...........this is how far the uk has fallen at the hands of
the dangerous woke lefties
and joe public doesn't realise how dangerous a precedence this has set -
until one day soon they will be on the receiving end of it when blm or
black boy breaks in to their house and the law states it's ok because
they were upset and offended
if folk can't see the dire implications then "none so blind as those who
won't see"
+1 well said Jim!
Not as far as the precedent claims are concerned. There is no precedent set
in this case.
Peeler
2022-01-08 19:54:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 06:22:39 +1100, %, better known as cantankerous trolling
senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
David Plowman about senile Rodent Speed's trolling:
"Wodney is doing a lot of morphing these days. Must be even more desperate
than usual for attention."
MID: <***@davenoise.co.uk>
Richard
2022-01-08 21:23:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 08/01/2022 19:22, Rod Speed wrote:
Brian Gaff (Sofa)
2022-01-09 08:23:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I do sometimes think some people here are a little too incensed by things. I
have to say though, it would I feel have been appropriate that those who are
involved in our colonial exploitative past did have some good points as
well. However we seem not to have learned to see people in the shades of
grey they really are, whether they be well known celebrities of today, or
colonialists of yesterday.
When does bad trump good and why can't we have impartiality any more.

There seem to be professional activists, looking for a cause.

I luckily know a lot of people from other cultures who share my world
hopefully enlightened view, and we must hope it is they who will prevail.
Nothing is ever day or night in these things. Of course there were out and
out villains and always will be but most people lived in the culture of the
time and acted as they thought was OK for their time. Look how long it took
Women to get the vote on an even keel with men, Look at how long women
were seen as chattels, ie belonging to the man.

Brian
--
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
Post by Harry Bloomfield Esq
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
wake up britain...........white indigenous britain is under attack (has
been for some time and it's now went up a gear)
see guvmint considering appeal court - not to overturn verdict but to
have judiciary explain how they are now going to deal will similar acts
of vandalism in future
thanks to the clever lefties it is now game on to demolish whatever blm
don't like...........as uk law works on the principle of precedence
(and let's recap - this statue was demolished in broad daylight for
everyone to see, the 4 admitted they demolished it - they got off purely
on the basis that they were offended and it impacted their mental health)
yet the law clearly states that acts of violence can only ever be excused
if it is proven there was an imminent threat to life or they were in
imminent serious danger (clearly they were not and this was without any
doubt a gross misscarriage of justice)
there is an easy way to test if this was a case of sheer political and
ideological bias..............
get someone to bulldoze the statue of the criminal and murderer nelson
mandella and use the colston case of precedence as the defence (can you
guess what would happen - I can)
while at it bulldoze every mosque..........mohamed and muslims had a long
history of having slaves
also........some of the biggest slave traders were black
africans.......they rounded up other blacks and sold them to whitey and
other blacks........yet blm are not upset and offended by them
what a joke...........this is how far the uk has fallen at the hands of
the dangerous woke lefties
and joe public doesn't realise how dangerous a precedence this has set -
until one day soon they will be on the receiving end of it when blm or
black boy breaks in to their house and the law states it's ok because
they were upset and offended
if folk can't see the dire implications then "none so blind as those who
won't see"
+1 well said Jim!
R D S
2022-01-08 13:41:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
also........some of the biggest slave traders were black
africans.......they rounded up other blacks and sold them to whitey and
other blacks........yet blm are not upset and offended by them
I've been wondering about this for some time, it doesn't seem to come up.
Jim GM4DHJ ...
2022-01-08 13:58:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R D S
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
also........some of the biggest slave traders were black
africans.......they rounded up other blacks and sold them to whitey
and other blacks........yet blm are not upset and offended by them
I've been wondering about this for some time, it doesn't seem to come up.
can't think why....perhaps it doesn't fit their agenda ? ...
Peeler
2022-01-08 19:55:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 06:28:14 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
***@home to senile know-it-all Rodent Speed:
"You really should stop commenting on things you know nothing about."
Message-ID: <pCVTC.283711$%***@fx40.am4>
Jim GM4DHJ ...
2022-01-09 07:58:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
Post by R D S
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
also........some of the biggest slave traders were black
africans.......
they rounded up other blacks and sold them to whitey and other
blacks........yet blm are not upset and offended by them
I've been wondering about this for some time, it doesn't seem to come up.
can't think why....perhaps it doesn't fit their agenda ? ...
More likely they are just pig ignorant about it.
One of the memoirs of someone involved in the slave trade is fascinating
about what the black africans got up to slave trading wise. Mostly they
rounded up their tribal enemys and traded them as slaves.
Not surprising the whiteys called them savages.
still are with all the knife crime in London ...
Dave Plowman (News)
2022-01-09 13:01:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
Not surprising the whiteys called them savages.
still are with all the knife crime in London ...
Not that long ago, Glasgow was the knife crime capital. Who did you put
that down to?
--
*I brake for no apparent reason.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Rod Speed
2022-01-09 18:29:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
Not surprising the whiteys called them savages.
still are with all the knife crime in London ...
Not that long ago, Glasgow was the knife
crime capital. Who did you put that down to?
The hairy legged cross dressing haggis raping
savages that infest that cess pit of the world.
Peeler
2022-01-09 18:39:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 05:29:44 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 87-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
newshound
2022-01-08 14:05:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R D S
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
also........some of the biggest slave traders were black
africans.......they rounded up other blacks and sold them to whitey
and other blacks........yet blm are not upset and offended by them
I've been wondering about this for some time, it doesn't seem to come up.
Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.

Slavery was endemic all the way back to prehistoric times. Britain was
one of the early abolishers.
Dave Plowman (News)
2022-01-08 14:21:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by newshound
Post by R D S
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
also........some of the biggest slave traders were black
africans.......they rounded up other blacks and sold them to whitey
and other blacks........yet blm are not upset and offended by them
I've been wondering about this for some time, it doesn't seem to come up.
Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.
Slavery was endemic all the way back to prehistoric times. Britain was
one of the early abolishers.
Love the 'logic' of some on here.

Others have done wrong. Therefore it's perfectly OK for me to do so too.

It was a trial by jury. Juries don't always get it right. The alternative
is worse.
--
*Speak softly and carry a cellular phone *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
The Natural Philosopher
2022-01-08 15:39:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
Post by R D S
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
also........some of the biggest slave traders were black
africans.......they rounded up other blacks and sold them to whitey
and other blacks........yet blm are not upset and offended by them
I've been wondering about this for some time, it doesn't seem to come up.
Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.
Slavery was endemic all the way back to prehistoric times. Britain was
one of the early abolishers.
Love the 'logic' of some on here.
Others have done wrong. Therefore it's perfectly OK for me to do so too.
I think the salient point is that back then, it wasn't considered to be wrong.
At least, not by enough people. The arabs certainly didn't consider it wrong,
seizing blacks up and down the east coast of Africa as they did for 1000
years. Or the inhabitants of the then Barbary Coast - see here for one of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Baltimore
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It was a trial by jury. Juries don't always get it right. The alternative
is worse.
For once I agree with Our Dave.
This lot were going to acquit no matter what or perhaps, as a letter in the
Times today had it, they were afraid that a guilty verdict would see them
having bricks or worse thrown through their front wondows.
But more importantly the prosecution should have been able to demolish this
non-argument that the existance of the statue was a "hate crime against
persons of colour living in Bristol". How do the perps know this? Did they
conduct a poll? Perhaps to ask if said people would like it removed? But then
why a racist poll - limited to "persons of colour" only? They could have
petitioned the City Council to carry out a poll of all those on its electoral
register to ask "Do you think this statue should be removed? Yes/No".
Hence the judicial review.

This is the thin edge of a very dangerous wedge

Started by one T Blair. Who argued that the principle of being wrong
didn't matter, what mattered was what you *thought* you were doing, not
what you actually did.
--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.
newshound
2022-01-09 20:46:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Started by one T Blair. Who argued that the principle of being wrong
didn't matter, what mattered was what you *thought* you were doing, not
what you actually did.
er, I think Mens Rea is a fairly fundamental bit of common law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
The Natural Philosopher
2022-01-10 12:01:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by newshound
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Started by one T Blair. Who argued that the principle of being wrong
didn't matter, what mattered was what you *thought* you were doing,
not what you actually did.
er, I think Mens Rea is a fairly fundamental bit of common law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
And a very dangerous one.

How can you prove a persons intentions were criminal, rather than his
behaviour?

And, considering that slavery was endemic at the time of Colson, how
can he be regarded as a criminal or offensive, when - like the alleged
statue topples, he thought he was doing te right thing?

And if I call someone 'my favourite nigger', with no intent to cause
offence or be hurtful, why then is that a hate crime?
--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."

- Stephen Vizinczey
Richard
2022-01-10 15:36:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by newshound
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Started by one T Blair. Who argued that the principle of being wrong
didn't matter, what mattered was what you *thought* you were doing,
not what you actually did.
er, I think Mens Rea is a fairly fundamental bit of common law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
And a very dangerous one.
How can you prove a persons intentions were criminal, rather than his
behaviour?
And, considering that slavery  was endemic at the time of Colson, how
can he be regarded as a criminal or offensive, when - like the alleged
statue topples, he thought he was doing te right thing?
And if I call someone 'my favourite nigger', with no intent to cause
offence or be hurtful, why then is that a hate crime?
The only real hate crime is committed by the people who choose to be
offended by proxy.
whisky-dave
2022-01-11 14:15:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by newshound
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Started by one T Blair. Who argued that the principle of being wrong
didn't matter, what mattered was what you *thought* you were doing,
not what you actually did.
er, I think Mens Rea is a fairly fundamental bit of common law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
And a very dangerous one.
How can you prove a persons intentions were criminal, rather than his
behaviour?
And, considering that slavery was endemic at the time of Colson, how
can he be regarded as a criminal or offensive, when - like the alleged
statue topples, he thought he was doing te right thing?
Not sure of the exact time frame here, but when a person was abducted
by the press gang and forced to work on a ship for virtually no pay
but just food and lodging and fighting for survival why weren't these people considered slaves
and part of the slave trade as I'm pretty sure the 'press gang' must have been paid to supply
the navy.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
And if I call someone 'my favourite nigger', with no intent to cause
offence or be hurtful, why then is that a hate crime?
I think its only a hate crime if you're white and do that, it's OK to call another person a nigger
if you yourself are black as that isn't racist or so I believe.

When a friend on facebook refferred to Trump and Boris as cunts an american women said
how dare he compare them to a womens genitalia and how insulting it was.
So I said look up the word in a modern English dictionary rather than american where in the UK the use fo the word cunt
is mostly used to describe a nasty person. We refer to a womens genitalia as the vag, vagina
or fanny, the word which you use for bum/arse/ass .
I would never refer to a womens genitalia as a Trump or a Boris as that would be truely insulting
to that area of the body.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."
- Stephen Vizinczey
Rod Speed
2022-01-11 14:55:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by whisky-dave
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by newshound
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Started by one T Blair. Who argued that the principle of being wrong
didn't matter, what mattered was what you *thought* you were doing,
not what you actually did.
er, I think Mens Rea is a fairly fundamental bit of common law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
And a very dangerous one.
How can you prove a persons intentions were criminal, rather than his
behaviour?
And, considering that slavery was endemic at the time of Colson, how
can he be regarded as a criminal or offensive, when - like the alleged
statue topples, he thought he was doing te right thing?
Not sure of the exact time frame here, but when a person was abducted
by the press gang and forced to work on a ship for virtually no pay
They were in fact paid the same as those who signed up voluntarily.
Post by whisky-dave
but just food and lodging and fighting for survival why weren't
these people considered slaves and part of the slave trade
Because you don’t pay slaves. The press gang
system wasn’t that different to conscription.
Post by whisky-dave
as I'm pretty sure the 'press gang' must
have been paid to supply the navy.
There wasn’t usually a separate press
gang, mostly the crew did the pressing.
Post by whisky-dave
Post by The Natural Philosopher
And if I call someone 'my favourite nigger', with no intent to
cause offence or be hurtful, why then is that a hate crime?
I think its only a hate crime if you're white and do that, it's OK to call
another
person a nigger if you yourself are black as that isn't racist or so I
believe.
One of my nigger mates calls himself a nigger.
Post by whisky-dave
When a friend on facebook refferred to Trump and Boris
as cunts an american women said how dare he compare
them to a womens genitalia and how insulting it was.
So I said look up the word in a modern English dictionary
rather than american where in the UK the use fo the word
cunt is mostly used to describe a nasty person.
And we also call some a dick.
Post by whisky-dave
We refer to a womens genitalia as the vag, vagina
or fanny, the word which you use for bum/arse/ass .
I would never refer to a womens genitalia as a Trump or a Boris
as that would be truely insulting to that area of the body.
Brian
2022-01-08 16:19:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
Post by R D S
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
also........some of the biggest slave traders were black
africans.......they rounded up other blacks and sold them to whitey
and other blacks........yet blm are not upset and offended by them
I've been wondering about this for some time, it doesn't seem to come up.
Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.
Slavery was endemic all the way back to prehistoric times. Britain was
one of the early abolishers.
Love the 'logic' of some on here.
Others have done wrong. Therefore it's perfectly OK for me to do so too.
That is the justification those who tore down the statue used and the
people who are defending them are using.

Those asking why BLM aren’t targeting ALL slavers are not justifying
slavery. They are questioning why BLM are targeting some slavers. In fact,
in the scheme of slavers, minor players. The Muslims were far more active
as slavers - both in terms of time and numbers- than any Westerner.

BLM is a facade. Just like ER and IB.
Tim Streater
2022-01-09 12:28:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
Slavery was endemic all the way back to prehistoric times. Britain was
one of the early abolishers.
Love the 'logic' of some on here.
Others have done wrong. Therefore it's perfectly OK for me to do so too.
More: "Lots of people did the same wrong. Why pick on one and not the
others?".
Because that doesn't suit the narrative. Our Dave is very selective about who
he wants to bash. That others are equally deserving of being bashed for the
same reason is quietly overlooked.

Apropos of this, long interesting - and worried - article in yesterday's Times
about the state of democracy in the US. The writer blames both sides for this
- both sides have claimed that "elections are being stolen", for example.

Here, we try to tighten up how voting is done to prevent fraud, but to some
the notion that <gasp> I should have to prove who I am when voting appears
astonishing. That I might also have to prove who I am when going to my bank to
ask for my PIN to be reset, or similar, doesn't seem to count.
--
Tim
Dave Plowman (News)
2022-01-09 13:06:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
Slavery was endemic all the way back to prehistoric times. Britain was
one of the early abolishers.
Love the 'logic' of some on here.
Others have done wrong. Therefore it's perfectly OK for me to do so too.
More: "Lots of people did the same wrong. Why pick on one and not the
others?".
Because that doesn't suit the narrative. Our Dave is very selective
about who he wants to bash. That others are equally deserving of being
bashed for the same reason is quietly overlooked.
Apropos of this, long interesting - and worried - article in yesterday's
Times about the state of democracy in the US. The writer blames both
sides for this - both sides have claimed that "elections are being
stolen", for example.
Here, we try to tighten up how voting is done to prevent fraud, but to
some the notion that <gasp> I should have to prove who I am when voting
appears astonishing. That I might also have to prove who I am when going
to my bank to ask for my PIN to be reset, or similar, doesn't seem to
count.
Oddly, I'm rather in favour of an identity card for all. Which would also
cover voting. But your Tory pals ain't.
--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Tim Lamb
2022-01-09 14:47:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
Slavery was endemic all the way back to prehistoric times. Britain was
one of the early abolishers.
Love the 'logic' of some on here.
Others have done wrong. Therefore it's perfectly OK for me to do so too.
More: "Lots of people did the same wrong. Why pick on one and not the
others?".
Because that doesn't suit the narrative. Our Dave is very selective
about who he wants to bash. That others are equally deserving of being
bashed for the same reason is quietly overlooked.
Apropos of this, long interesting - and worried - article in yesterday's
Times about the state of democracy in the US. The writer blames both
sides for this - both sides have claimed that "elections are being
stolen", for example.
Here, we try to tighten up how voting is done to prevent fraud, but to
some the notion that <gasp> I should have to prove who I am when voting
appears astonishing. That I might also have to prove who I am when going
to my bank to ask for my PIN to be reset, or similar, doesn't seem to
count.
Oddly, I'm rather in favour of an identity card for all. Which would also
cover voting. But your Tory pals ain't.
Actually, I don't care:-)
--
Tim Lamb
Tim Streater
2022-01-09 15:21:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
Slavery was endemic all the way back to prehistoric times. Britain was
one of the early abolishers.
Love the 'logic' of some on here.
Others have done wrong. Therefore it's perfectly OK for me to do so too.
More: "Lots of people did the same wrong. Why pick on one and not the
others?".
Because that doesn't suit the narrative. Our Dave is very selective
about who he wants to bash. That others are equally deserving of being
bashed for the same reason is quietly overlooked.
Apropos of this, long interesting - and worried - article in yesterday's
Times about the state of democracy in the US. The writer blames both
sides for this - both sides have claimed that "elections are being
stolen", for example.
Here, we try to tighten up how voting is done to prevent fraud, but to
some the notion that <gasp> I should have to prove who I am when voting
appears astonishing. That I might also have to prove who I am when going
to my bank to ask for my PIN to be reset, or similar, doesn't seem to
count.
Oddly, I'm rather in favour of an identity card for all. Which would also
cover voting. But your Tory pals ain't.
And neither am I. It empowers the state too much. Asking people to present a
passport/driving licence or the voter ID to be issued by your LA doesn't seem
excessive.
--
What you must understand is that, for today's left intellectuals, education is useful only to the extent that it endorses their prejudices. Beyond that, they refuse to go.

Roger Scruton
Dave Plowman (News)
2022-01-09 16:56:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Oddly, I'm rather in favour of an identity card for all. Which would
also cover voting. But your Tory pals ain't.
And neither am I. It empowers the state too much. Asking people to
present a passport/driving licence or the voter ID to be issued by your
LA doesn't seem excessive.
Err, not everyone has a driving licence. Nor a passport.

You want voting restricted to those who have them?
--
*(on a baby-size shirt) "Party -- my crib -- two a.m

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
JNugent
2022-01-09 17:14:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Oddly, I'm rather in favour of an identity card for all. Which would
also cover voting. But your Tory pals ain't.
And neither am I. It empowers the state too much. Asking people to
present a passport/driving licence or the voter ID to be issued by your
LA doesn't seem excessive.
Err, not everyone has a driving licence. Nor a passport.
You want voting restricted to those who have them?
QUOTE:
...or the voter ID...
ENDQUOTE

How on Earth did you miss that?
Richard
2022-01-09 17:53:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Oddly, I'm rather in favour of an identity card for all. Which would
also cover voting. But your Tory pals ain't.
And neither am I. It empowers the state too much. Asking people to
present a passport/driving licence or the voter ID to be issued by your
LA doesn't seem excessive.
Err, not everyone has a driving licence. Nor a passport.
You want voting restricted to those who have them?
...or the voter ID...
ENDQUOTE
How on Earth did you miss that?
Selective stupidity.
Dave Plowman (News)
2022-01-10 14:43:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Oddly, I'm rather in favour of an identity card for all. Which would
also cover voting. But your Tory pals ain't.
And neither am I. It empowers the state too much. Asking people to
present a passport/driving licence or the voter ID to be issued by your
LA doesn't seem excessive.
Err, not everyone has a driving licence. Nor a passport.
You want voting restricted to those who have them?
...or the voter ID...
ENDQUOTE
How on Earth did you miss that?
No. Just wondered why anyone could be against an ID card, but voter ID
issued instead?

But perhaps you carry your passport everywhere you go.
--
*If tennis elbow is painful, imagine suffering with tennis balls *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
charles
2022-01-10 15:26:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Oddly, I'm rather in favour of an identity card for all. Which would
also cover voting. But your Tory pals ain't.
And neither am I. It empowers the state too much. Asking people to
present a passport/driving licence or the voter ID to be issued by your
LA doesn't seem excessive.
Err, not everyone has a driving licence. Nor a passport.
You want voting restricted to those who have them?
...or the voter ID...
ENDQUOTE
How on Earth did you miss that?
No. Just wondered why anyone could be against an ID card, but voter ID
issued instead?
Your Papers, pleass, could be the start of a police state - to some people
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
But perhaps you carry your passport everywhere you go.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Dave Plowman (News)
2022-01-11 14:09:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Oddly, I'm rather in favour of an identity card for all. Which would
also cover voting. But your Tory pals ain't.
And neither am I. It empowers the state too much. Asking people to
present a passport/driving licence or the voter ID to be issued by your
LA doesn't seem excessive.
Err, not everyone has a driving licence. Nor a passport.
You want voting restricted to those who have them?
...or the voter ID...
ENDQUOTE
How on Earth did you miss that?
No. Just wondered why anyone could be against an ID card, but voter ID
issued instead?
Your Papers, pleass, could be the start of a police state - to some people
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
But perhaps you carry your passport everywhere you go.
Being required to carry an ID card at all times is a totally different
matter? The most common form of ID asked for is likely a driving licence -
but you don't have to carry that even when driving.
--
*It's this dirty because I washed it with your wife's knickers*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
charles
2022-01-11 14:31:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by charles
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Oddly, I'm rather in favour of an identity card for all. Which would
also cover voting. But your Tory pals ain't.
And neither am I. It empowers the state too much. Asking people to
present a passport/driving licence or the voter ID to be issued by your
LA doesn't seem excessive.
Err, not everyone has a driving licence. Nor a passport.
You want voting restricted to those who have them?
...or the voter ID...
ENDQUOTE
How on Earth did you miss that?
No. Just wondered why anyone could be against an ID card, but voter ID
issued instead?
Your Papers, pleass, could be the start of a police state - to some people
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
But perhaps you carry your passport everywhere you go.
Being required to carry an ID card at all times is a totally different
matter? The most common form of ID asked for is likely a driving licence -
but you don't have to carry that even when driving.
I do, because being asked to present it at a Police Stion would be a fag.
Anyway, can you find a police station?
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
JNugent
2022-01-10 16:01:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Oddly, I'm rather in favour of an identity card for all. Which would
also cover voting. But your Tory pals ain't.
And neither am I. It empowers the state too much. Asking people to
present a passport/driving licence or the voter ID to be issued by your
LA doesn't seem excessive.
Err, not everyone has a driving licence. Nor a passport.
You want voting restricted to those who have them?
...or the voter ID...
ENDQUOTE
How on Earth did you miss that?
No.
What does that mean?

That you did miss it accidentally?

Or that you didn't miss it but decided to ignore it?
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Just wondered why anyone could be against an ID card, but voter ID
issued instead?
That's none of my business really (ask whoever it is you're talking
about), but the voter ID card wouldn't be something you could be asked
for at any random moment out in the street, would it? So not directly
comparable with a general civic ID card.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
But perhaps you carry your passport everywhere you go.
I do carry my (handy, credit-card-sized) driving licence with me, along
with various credit and debit cards, membership cards, etc.

But even so, what does "everywhere you go" have to do with it?

There's a difference (especially in frequency) between going out to the
paper shop and going out to vote, isn't there?
Rod Speed
2022-01-10 17:20:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Oddly, I'm rather in favour of an identity card for all. Which would
also cover voting. But your Tory pals ain't.
And neither am I. It empowers the state too much. Asking people to
present a passport/driving licence or the voter ID to be issued by your
LA doesn't seem excessive.
Err, not everyone has a driving licence. Nor a passport.
You want voting restricted to those who have them?
...or the voter ID...
ENDQUOTE
How on Earth did you miss that?
No.
What does that mean?
That you did miss it accidentally?
Or that you didn't miss it but decided to ignore it?
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Just wondered why anyone could be against an ID card, but voter ID
issued instead?
That's none of my business really (ask whoever it is you're talking
about), but the voter ID card wouldn't be something you could be asked for
at any random moment out in the street, would it? So not directly
comparable with a general civic ID card.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
But perhaps you carry your passport everywhere you go.
I do carry my (handy, credit-card-sized) driving licence with me, along
with various credit and debit cards, membership cards, etc.
But even so, what does "everywhere you go" have to do with it?
There's a difference (especially in frequency) between going out to the
paper shop and going out to vote, isn't there?
Not in my case, I haven't bothered with either for decades now.
Peeler
2022-01-10 18:44:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 04:20:10 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
***@home to senile know-it-all Rodent Speed:
"You really should stop commenting on things you know nothing about."
Message-ID: <pCVTC.283711$%***@fx40.am4>
Dave Plowman (News)
2022-01-11 14:10:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Just wondered why anyone could be against an ID card, but voter ID
issued instead?
That's none of my business really (ask whoever it is you're talking
about), but the voter ID card wouldn't be something you could be asked
for at any random moment out in the street, would it? So not directly
comparable with a general civic ID card.
What makes you think an ID card would have to be carried at all times?
Paranoia? We're not in WW2 anymore.
--
*I'm not your type. I'm not inflatable.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Robin
2022-01-10 16:03:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Oddly, I'm rather in favour of an identity card for all. Which would
also cover voting. But your Tory pals ain't.
And neither am I. It empowers the state too much. Asking people to
present a passport/driving licence or the voter ID to be issued by your
LA doesn't seem excessive.
Err, not everyone has a driving licence. Nor a passport.
You want voting restricted to those who have them?
...or the voter ID...
ENDQUOTE
How on Earth did you miss that?
No. Just wondered why anyone could be against an ID card, but voter ID
issued instead?
Cost could be one reason. The Blair/Brown scheme was estimated in 2017
to be heading for £bn 12 to 18 over 10 years. Even Labour don't claim
Voter ID will cost more than £m40 over 10 years. And remember that
people were going to have to pay for their ID cards. Voter ID for those
w/o passport etc will be free.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Tim Streater
2022-01-10 15:03:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Oddly, I'm rather in favour of an identity card for all. Which would
also cover voting. But your Tory pals ain't.
And neither am I. It empowers the state too much. Asking people to
present a passport/driving licence or the voter ID to be issued by your
LA doesn't seem excessive.
Err, not everyone has a driving licence. Nor a passport.
You want voting restricted to those who have them?
Oh shut up. You've already been told that your LA will issue a free voter-id
card on request.
--
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc
Richard
2022-01-10 15:38:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Oddly, I'm rather in favour of an identity card for all. Which would
also cover voting. But your Tory pals ain't.
And neither am I. It empowers the state too much. Asking people to
present a passport/driving licence or the voter ID to be issued by your
LA doesn't seem excessive.
Err, not everyone has a driving licence. Nor a passport.
You want voting restricted to those who have them?
Oh shut up.
One could hope.
Post by Tim Streater
You've already been told that your LA will issue a free voter-id
card on request.
Tim Lamb
2022-01-09 19:01:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
Slavery was endemic all the way back to prehistoric times. Britain was
one of the early abolishers.
Love the 'logic' of some on here.
Others have done wrong. Therefore it's perfectly OK for me to do so too.
More: "Lots of people did the same wrong. Why pick on one and not the
others?".
Because that doesn't suit the narrative. Our Dave is very selective
about who he wants to bash. That others are equally deserving of being
bashed for the same reason is quietly overlooked.
Apropos of this, long interesting - and worried - article in yesterday's
Times about the state of democracy in the US. The writer blames both
sides for this - both sides have claimed that "elections are being
stolen", for example.
Here, we try to tighten up how voting is done to prevent fraud, but to
some the notion that <gasp> I should have to prove who I am when voting
appears astonishing. That I might also have to prove who I am when going
to my bank to ask for my PIN to be reset, or similar, doesn't seem to
count.
Oddly, I'm rather in favour of an identity card for all. Which would also
cover voting. But your Tory pals ain't.
And neither am I. It empowers the state too much. Asking people to present a
passport/driving licence or the voter ID to be issued by your LA doesn't seem
excessive.
So how does that work? The householder has filled in the voter
registration form allowing the LA to issue an appropriate number of
voting cards? Will they have your photo? If not there seems little
improvement in security over the current system.
--
Tim Lamb
%
2022-01-09 18:00:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
Slavery was endemic all the way back to prehistoric times. Britain was
one of the early abolishers.
Love the 'logic' of some on here.
Others have done wrong. Therefore it's perfectly OK for me to do so too.
More: "Lots of people did the same wrong. Why pick on one and not the
others?".
Because that doesn't suit the narrative. Our Dave is very selective about who
he wants to bash. That others are equally deserving of being bashed for the
same reason is quietly overlooked.
Apropos of this, long interesting - and worried - article in yesterday's Times
about the state of democracy in the US. The writer blames both sides for this
- both sides have claimed that "elections are being stolen", for example.
Here, we try to tighten up how voting is done to prevent fraud, but to some
the notion that <gasp> I should have to prove who I am when voting appears
astonishing. That I might also have to prove who I am when going to my
bank to ask for my PIN to be reset, or similar, doesn't seem to count.
The problem with proving who you are when voting is more about
the claim that some sectors of the community will find it harder to
do that and so not bother to vote and so bias the voting result.
Peeler
2022-01-09 18:39:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 05:00:44 +1100, %, better known as cantankerous trolling
senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That’s because so much piss and shite emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a Wanker."
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
Dave Plowman (News)
2022-01-09 13:04:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
Post by R D S
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
also........some of the biggest slave traders were black
africans.......they rounded up other blacks and sold them to whitey
and other blacks........yet blm are not upset and offended by them
I've been wondering about this for some time, it doesn't seem to come up.
Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.
Slavery was endemic all the way back to prehistoric times. Britain was
one of the early abolishers.
Love the 'logic' of some on here.
Others have done wrong. Therefore it's perfectly OK for me to do so too.
More: "Lots of people did the same wrong. Why pick on one and not the
others?".
Were there statues of these other slave traders in Bristol?
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It was a trial by jury. Juries don't always get it right. The
alternative is worse.
What, the magistrates might have got it right?
Perhaps if No 10 parties had come to court, they might?
--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
JNugent
2022-01-09 17:12:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
Post by R D S
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
also........some of the biggest slave traders were black
africans.......they rounded up other blacks and sold them to whitey
and other blacks........yet blm are not upset and offended by them
I've been wondering about this for some time, it doesn't seem to come up.
Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.
Slavery was endemic all the way back to prehistoric times. Britain was
one of the early abolishers.
Love the 'logic' of some on here.
Others have done wrong. Therefore it's perfectly OK for me to do so too.
More: "Lots of people did the same wrong. Why pick on one and not the
others?".
Were there statues of these other slave traders in Bristol?
What does that have to do with anything?

Why pick on Colston in the first place, but not on others?

Or is Colston definitely the barbarians' "Last Territorial Demand [They]
Have to Make in Europe"?
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It was a trial by jury. Juries don't always get it right. The
alternative is worse.
What, the magistrates might have got it right?
Perhaps if No 10 parties had come to court, they might?
???

Whatever that means (it must have some meaning, I suppose, no matter how
well-disguised).

Would the magistrates have convicted or acquitted?

In your opinion, of course.
Rod Speed
2022-01-09 18:50:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
Post by R D S
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
also........some of the biggest slave traders were black
africans.......they rounded up other blacks and sold them to whitey
and other blacks........yet blm are not upset and offended by them
I've been wondering about this for some time, it doesn't seem to come up.
Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.
Slavery was endemic all the way back to prehistoric times. Britain was
one of the early abolishers.
Love the 'logic' of some on here.
Others have done wrong. Therefore it's perfectly OK for me to do so too.
More: "Lots of people did the same wrong. Why pick on one and not the
others?".
Were there statues of these other slave traders in Bristol?
What does that have to do with anything?
Why pick on Colston in the first place, but not on others?
Because he has a handy statue that can be pulled down.

More work to dig up the other's graves and toss the corpse into the canal.
Post by JNugent
Or is Colston definitely the barbarians' "Last Territorial Demand [They]
Have to Make in Europe"?
See above.
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It was a trial by jury. Juries don't always get it right. The
alternative is worse.
What, the magistrates might have got it right?
Perhaps if No 10 parties had come to court, they might?
???
Whatever that means (it must have some meaning, I suppose, no matter how
well-disguised).
Would the magistrates have convicted or acquitted?
Of course they would have convicted but may not
have imposed much penalty if they chose to do that.
Post by JNugent
In your opinion, of course.
Peeler
2022-01-09 19:24:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 05:50:34 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That’s because so much piss and shite emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a Wanker."
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
Rod Speed
2022-01-09 17:52:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
Post by R D S
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
also........some of the biggest slave traders were black
africans.......they rounded up other blacks and sold them to whitey
and other blacks........yet blm are not upset and offended by them
I've been wondering about this for some time, it doesn't seem to come up.
Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.
Slavery was endemic all the way back to prehistoric times. Britain was
one of the early abolishers.
Love the 'logic' of some on here.
Others have done wrong. Therefore it's perfectly OK for me to do so too.
More: "Lots of people did the same wrong. Why pick on one and not the
others?".
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It was a trial by jury. Juries don't always get it right. The alternative
is worse.
What, the magistrates might have got it right?
Yep, very unlikely to have found them not guilty given they admitted they
did it.

Might have ended up with a trivial penalty tho.
Peeler
2022-01-09 18:40:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 04:52:04 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
***@home to retarded trolling senile Rodent:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID: <uV9lE.196195$***@fx46.iad>
Harry Bloomfield Esq
2022-01-08 15:03:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Britain was one of the early abolishers.
Correct!

..and it still goes on..
Tim Streater
2022-01-08 15:33:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Harry Bloomfield Esq
Britain was one of the early abolishers.
Correct!
..and it still goes on..
Abolition was for within the British Empire.
--
Lady Astor: "If you were my husband I'd give you poison."
Churchill: "If you were my wife, I'd drink it."
Tim Streater
2022-01-08 17:22:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim Streater
Post by Harry Bloomfield Esq
Britain was one of the early abolishers.
Correct!
..and it still goes on..
Abolition was for within the British Empire.
But the slave trade was brought to halt worldwide (obviously it still
goes on, but the mass trade was stopped) by the British Navy - not just
within the British Empire.
Yes. The empire stopped trading in slaves but the overall trade continued, so
this country took it upon itself to interdict the trade. That was the navy's
job for most of the 19thC, IIRC.

And it cost us a lot of dosh, so if anyone says the word "reparations" in this
context, my response is, you've already had it.
--
When it becomes serious, you have to lie.

Jean-Claude Juncker, Reuters 31st May 2013.
Pamela
2022-01-08 17:23:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 08 Jan 2022 at 15:03:57 GMT, Harry Bloomfield Esq
Post by Harry Bloomfield Esq
Britain was one of the early abolishers.
Correct!
..and it still goes on..
Abolition was for within the British Empire.
But the slave trade was brought to halt worldwide (obviously it
still goes on, but the mass trade was stopped) by the British Navy -
not just within the British Empire.
Sadly British forces were unable to stop Africans selling vast numbers
of kinsmen to Arabs in the East African Slave Trade.

In this video, this old boy historian discusses the failure of Gordon
of Khartoum to break up the Indian Ocean slave trade but met strong
opposition from Africans and died as a result.

"What did the British Empire ever do for Africa?"

Tim Streater
2022-01-08 18:10:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
On 08 Jan 2022 at 15:03:57 GMT, Harry Bloomfield Esq
Post by Harry Bloomfield Esq
Britain was one of the early abolishers.
Correct!
..and it still goes on..
Abolition was for within the British Empire.
But the slave trade was brought to halt worldwide (obviously it
still goes on, but the mass trade was stopped) by the British Navy -
not just within the British Empire.
Sadly British forces were unable to stop Africans selling vast numbers
of kinsmen to Arabs in the East African Slave Trade.
In this video, this old boy historian discusses the failure of Gordon
of Khartoum to break up the Indian Ocean slave trade but met strong
opposition from Africans and died as a result.
"What did the British Empire ever do for Africa?"
http://youtu.be/CIHkOTxj7J8
Humph, thanks for that. That's all new to me. The Wikipedia article about him
has a lot to say about the slavery issue there.
--
Tim
Peeler
2022-01-08 19:55:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 06:48:27 +1100, %, better known as cantankerous trolling
senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Xeno to senile Rodent:
"You're a sad old man Rod, truly sad."
MID: <***@mid.individual.net>
%
2022-01-08 19:35:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R D S
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
also........some of the biggest slave traders were black
africans.......they rounded up other blacks and sold them to whitey and
other blacks........yet blm are not upset and offended by them
I've been wondering about this for some time, it doesn't seem to come up.
Black lives matter are Marxists. Therefore nothing they say is true, only
useful in stirring up hatred against society.
BLM are essentially trying to create divisions in society along racial
grounds for te purposes of violent protest and destruction of society,
because Marx told them that once the existing order was smashed something
better would naturally emerge. So far its usually been military dictators
and the sort of economics where you eat your own pets
The chinese did better than that in famines, swap the kids with the
neighbours
because its easier to eat the neighbours kids than your own.
Peeler
2022-01-08 19:56:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 06:35:15 +1100, %, better known as cantankerous trolling
senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Richard about senile Rodent:
"Rod Speed, a bare faced pig and ignorant twat."
MID: <r5uoe4$1kqo$***@gioia.aioe.org>
Jim GM4DHJ ...
2022-01-09 07:59:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by %
Post by R D S
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
also........some of the biggest slave traders were black
africans.......they rounded up other blacks and sold them to whitey
and other blacks........yet blm are not upset and offended by them
I've been wondering about this for some time, it doesn't seem to come up.
Black lives matter are Marxists. Therefore nothing they say is true,
only useful in stirring up hatred against society.
BLM are essentially trying to create divisions in society along racial
grounds for te purposes of violent protest and destruction of society,
because Marx told them that once the existing order was smashed
something better would naturally emerge. So far its usually been
military dictators and the sort of economics where you eat your own pets
The chinese did better than that in famines, swap the kids with the
neighbours
because its easier to eat the neighbours kids than your own.
tasty
Peeler
2022-01-08 19:38:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."

https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$***@sqwertz.com>
nightjar
2022-01-08 22:49:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
wake up britain...........white indigenous britain is under attack (has
been for some time and it's now went up a gear)
see guvmint considering appeal court - not to overturn verdict but to
have judiciary explain how they are now going to deal will similar acts
of vandalism in future
thanks to the clever lefties
Actually, thanks to the vagaries of a jury, a group of people who always
the unpredictable element in any trial.

it is now game on to demolish whatever blm
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
don't like...........as uk law works on the principle of precedence..
Precedence is an element of common law, but only where a legal principle
has been defined. Even where one is set, it is not necessarily binding
upon subsequent cases. In any case, criminal damage is a matter of
statute law, so any Court can refer to
--
Colin Bignell
nightjar
2022-01-08 22:52:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by nightjar
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
wake up britain...........white indigenous britain is under attack
(has been for some time and it's now went up a gear)
see guvmint considering appeal court - not to overturn verdict but to
have judiciary explain how they are now going to deal will similar
acts of vandalism in future
thanks to the clever lefties
Actually, thanks to the vagaries of a jury, a group of people who always
the unpredictable element in any trial.
it is now game on to demolish whatever blm
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
don't like...........as uk law works on the principle of precedence..
Precedence is an element of common law, but only where a legal principle
has been defined. Even where one is set, it is not necessarily binding
upon subsequent cases. In any case, criminal damage is a matter of
statute law, so any Court can refer to
The Criminal Damage Act 1971 for guidance.

(As I was about to type before I accidentally sent the previous post)
--
Colin Bignell
Loading...